BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, SIRSA.
Consumer Complaint no. 528 of 2019
Date of Institution : 11.9.2019
Date of Order : 27.2.2020
Hawa Singh @ Hari Singh son of Shri Harnam Singh, resident of V.P.O. Shakker Mandori, District Sirsa, Haryana.
Versus.
- Reliance General Insurance Co. Ltd., 2nd Floor, S.C.O. 147-148, Madhya Marg, Sector-9C, Chandigarh.
- Deputy Director of Agriculture, Sirsa, Haryana.
- Manager, Sarva Haryana Gramin Bank, Village Nahrana, District Sirsa, Haryana.
...…Opposite parties.
Complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act,1986.
Before: SHRI R.L. AHUJA………………….. PRESIDENT
SMT. SUKHDEEP KAUR…………..MEMBER.
Present: Sh. Rakesh Kashnia, Advocate for complainants/ applicants.
Sh. H.S. Raghav, Advocate for opposite party no.1.
Sh. Satvir Singh, ASO on behalf of opposite party no.2.
Sh. M.S. Sethi, Advocate for opposite party no.3.
ORDER
Heard on the application for condonation of delay.
2. It is alleged in the application that applicant had got insured his crop of cotton for the kharif season of year 2016 with the op no.1 through op no.3 and the cotton crop of applicant was damaged due to natural calamity which was insured under PMFBY scheme. It is further alleged that applicant intimated the op no.2 regarding the loss and thereafter op no.2 communicated the above fact to op no.1. The applicant had visited the ops many a times for settlement of his claim on account of damage of cotton crop for the kharif 2016 season but every time op no.2 told the applicant that they are in conversation with the op no.1 for the settlement of cotton crop claim and had shown to the applicant the letters sent to the op no.1 regarding the above fact and on this assurance, the applicant had not filed the present complaint earlier but till today the applicant has not received the sum assured. Hence, this application alongwith the complaint.
3. In reply to the application, it is submitted by op no.1 that present application is not maintainable and same is liable to be dismissed. The complainant has neither shown any deficiency nor any undue denial of service on the part of op as per the terms and conditions of insurance policy. It is further submitted that every consumer complaint must be entertained within two years from the date of cause of action. The cause of action mentioned by the complainant is of 2016 and no further events have been mentioned in the application. No consumer dispute has arisen between the parties. It is further submitted that no such proof has been placed on record that applicant intimated the loss to op no.2 and op no.2 communicated the loss to op no.1.
4. Opposite party no.2 in its reply submitted that in the application the complainant has not mentioned any ground of condonation, hence, the same is liable to be dismissed on this score only. The other contents of the application are also denied to be wrong.
5. Op no.3 in its reply submitted that complainant never visited to answering op rather the matter for payment of compensation is in between complainant and op noi.1. The complainant has not given any exceptional reason for not filing the complaint within limitation. Moreover, there is no provision for condonation of delay in the Consumer Protection Act.
6. Learned counsel for complainant has contended that there was sufficient cause for not filing the complaint well in time and delay is liable to be condoned.
7. On the other hand, learned counsel for op no.1 has contended that complaint itself is not maintainable against op no.1. No intimation of loss was ever given to op no.1 nor any claim was lodged with op no.1 and complainant has not shown any sufficient cause for condonation of delay nor complainant has furnished any affidavit in support of his application.
8. Sh. Satvir Singh, ASO on behalf of op no.2 has also contended that application is not maintainable and same is liable to be dismissed. No intimation of loss of any crop was ever given by complainant to op no.2 nor any claim was lodged. The complaint moved by complainant against op no.2 is not maintainable and same is duly time barred.
9. Learned counsel for op no.3 has contended that no information regarding loss of crop was ever given to op no.3 nor any application was moved to get loss assessed nor he claimed any compensation from the insurance company through op no.3. The applicant has fully failed to establish sufficient cause for not filing the complaint well within time.
10. We have considered the rival contentions of the parties and have perused the case file carefully.
11. The perusal of the record reveals that complainant has filed the present complaint against the ops with the averments that complainant is holding agricultural land in village Shakker Mandori, District Sirsa and is also holding kisan credit account with op no.3. As per Government notification, after the introduction of crop insurance scheme, every farmer was required to get his crop insured. In pursuance to that instructions, complainant had got his crop of khairf 2016 insured from op no.1 through op no.3 by paying requisite premium which was deducted by op no.3 and same was paid to op no.1.
12. Further, there are allegations that due to white fly, cotton crop of complainant for the kharif season of year 2016 was damaged, which was insured with op no.1 through op no.3. The complainant has alleged that he has informed to the ops qua loss/ damage of crop well in time, but however, they did not pay any compensation, for which he is entitled. The perusal of the record further reveals that complainant has not placed on record any application/ letter addressed to any of the ops qua intimation of loss/ damage of their crop nor he has placed on record any copy of the claim which he has ever lodged with ops. No doubt, requisite amount of premium was deducted by op no.3 from KCC account of complainant and same was paid to op no.1 and crop of complainant was insured but it was legal obligation of the complainant to inform the ops qua damage of his crop well within time and to lodge claim, but however, record reveals that neither he has informed the ops nor he has lodged claim with any of the ops.
13. It is undisputed fact that crop cutting was effected lastly in the month of October, 2016, but however, the complainant did not lodge any claim with ops nor he has placed on record any khasra girdawari entry of which are recorded by Halqa Patwari showing any loss or damage of his crop. The cause of action had accrued to the complainant after October, 2016 and complainant was required to file complaint within a period of two years from the date of accrual of cause of action as per Section 24-A of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. So complaint of complainant does not appear to be maintainable and same is time barred.
14. Though, complainant has moved this application with the averments that he had informed the op no.2 but he has not placed on record any supported document. The applicant/ complainant has not placed on record any record of visit of the officials of ops at the land of the complainant nor he has placed on record any name of the witness in whose presence land was inspected. Section 24A of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 provides as under:-
24A. Limitation period-
- The District Forum, the State Commission or the National Commission shall not admit a complaint unless it is filed within two years from the date on which the cause of action has arisen.
- Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-section (1), a complaint may be entertained after the period specified in sub-section (1), if the complainant satisfies the District Forum, the State Commission or the National Commission, as the case may be, that he had sufficient cause for not filing the complaint within such period: Provided that no such complaint shall be entertained unless the National Commission, the State Commission or the District Forum, as the case may be, records its reasons for condoning such delay.
15. Since, complainant has not proved on record sufficient cause for not filing the complaint within period of two years from the accrual of cause of action nor has placed on record any document in support of his plea taken in the application, so the application moved by complainant does not appear to be maintainable and is liable to be dismissed. He has not proved any sufficient cause for not filing the complaint within two years from the date of cause of action which has accrued to the complainant after October 2016, nor he has placed on record any affidavit in support of his averments made in the application.
16. In view of our above discussion, the application of applicant appears to be devoid of merit and same is hereby dismissed. Resultantly, the complaint also stands dismissed but with no order as to costs. A copy of this order be supplied to the parties as per rules. File be consigned to the record room.
Announced in open Forum. President,
Dated:27.02.2020. Member District Consumer Disputes
Redressal Forum, Sirsa.
